Recent work has shown that large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating summaries zero-shot—i.e., without explicit supervision—that, under human assessment, are often comparable or even preferred to manually composed reference summaries. However, this prior work has focussed almost exclusively on evaluating news article summarization. How do zero-shot summarizers perform in other (potentially more specialized) domains?In this work we evaluate zero-shot generated summaries across specialized domains including: biomedical articles, and legal bills (in addition to standard news benchmarks for reference). We focus especially on the factuality of outputs. We acquire annotations from domain experts to identify inconsistencies in summaries and systematically categorize these errors. We analyze whether the prevalence of a given domain in the pretraining corpus affects extractiveness and faithfulness of generated summaries of articles in this domain. We release all collected annotations to facilitate additional research toward measuring and realizing factually accurate summarization, beyond news articles (The dataset can be downloaded from https://anonymous.4open.science/r/zero_shot_faceval_domains-9B83)

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the capabilities of summarization systems.However, they continue to face a persistent challenge: hallucination. While prior work has extensively examined LLMs in news domains, evaluation of dialogue summarization has primarily focused on BART-based models, resulting in a notable gap in understanding LLM effectiveness.Our work seeks to address this gap by benchmarking LLMs for dialogue summarization faithfulness using human annotations,focusing on identifying and categorizing span-level inconsistencies.Specifically, we evaluate two prominent LLMs: GPT-4 and Alpaca-13B.Our evaluation reveals that LLMs often generate plausible, but not fully supported inferences based on conversation contextual cues, a trait absent in older models. As a result, we propose a refined taxonomy of errors, introducing a novel category termed “Contextual Inference” to address this aspect of LLM behavior. Using our taxonomy, we compare the behavioral differences between LLMs and older fine-tuned models. Additionally, we systematically assess the efficacy of automatic error detection methods on LLM summaries and find that they struggle to detect these nuanced errors effectively. To address this, we introduce two prompt-based approaches for fine-grained error detection. Our methods outperform existing metrics, particularly in identifying the novel “Contextual Inference” error type.

While the NLP community has produced numerous summarization benchmarks, none provide the rich annotations required to simultaneously address many important problems related to control and reliability. We introduce a Wikipedia-derived benchmark, complemented by a rich set of crowd-sourced annotations, that supports 8 interrelated tasks: (i) extractive summarization; (ii) abstractive summarization; (iii) topic-based summarization; (iv) compressing selected sentences into a one-line summary; (v) surfacing evidence for a summary sentence; (vi) predicting the factual accuracy of a summary sentence; (vii) identifying unsubstantiated spans in a summary sentence; (viii) correcting factual errors in summaries. We compare various methods on this benchmark and discover that on multiple tasks, moderately-sized fine-tuned models consistently outperform much larger few-shot prompted language models. For factuality-related tasks, we also evaluate existing heuristics to create training data and find that training on them results in worse performance than training on 20× less human-labeled data. Our articles draw from 6 domains, facilitating cross-domain analysis. On some tasks, the amount of training data matters more than the domain where it comes from, while for other tasks training specifically on data from the target domain, even if limited, is more beneficial.

In this work we present TrialsSummarizer, a system that aims to automatically summarize evidence presented in the set of randomized controlled trials most relevant to a given query. Building on prior work, the system retrieves trial publications matching a query specifying a combination of condition, intervention(s), and outcome(s), and ranks these according to sample size and estimated study quality. The top-k such studies are passed through a neural multi-document summarization system, yielding a synopsis of these trials. We consider two architectures: A standard sequence-to-sequence model based on BART, and a multi-headed architecture intended to provide greater transparency and controllability to end-users. Both models produce fluent and relevant summaries of evidence retrieved for queries, but their tendency to introduce unsupported statements render them inappropriate for use in this domain at present. The proposed architecture may help users verify outputs allowing users to trace generated tokens back to inputs. The demonstration video can be found at https://vimeo.com/735605060The prototype, source code, and model weights are available at: https://sanjanaramprasad.github.io/trials-summarizer/